The second amendment

Perspectives on our world and our universe, how it works, what is happening, and why it happens. Whether by a hidden hand or natural laws, we come together to hash it out, and perhaps provide a little bit of education and enlightenment for others. This is a place for civil discussion. Please keep it that way.
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
Post Reply
User avatar
NorthernComfort
Crazy Person
Posts: 2745
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 8:13 pm
Real Name: Alex
Gender: Male
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The second amendment

Post by NorthernComfort » Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:14 am

Earlier today, Trump claimed that Hillary wants to essentially abolish the 2nd. He followed with:
Trump, via NYT, wrote:“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”
So what doesn't he know? He doesn't know if "2nd amendment people" have something to do? i.e. kill the President or a Supreme Court Justice? The answer is no. And if the question is if he can joke about it, the answer remains no.
"I guess I have a gift for expressing pedestrian tastes. In a way, it's kind of depressing." -Bill Watterson

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 43995
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:14 pm

Trump is a tool. We've got 3 months to go, but I don't really see him sweeping ahead.

It makes me sad, because there's a good chance he's right, at least insofar as it's likely Hillary would seek out justices who she thinks would make her look good on the topics du jour, certainly including areas where rights and rationality are swept aside routinely in favor of emotional hypotheticals like the Second Amendment.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
The Cid
Crazy Person
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast
Contact:

Re: The second amendment

Post by The Cid » Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:21 pm

Deacon wrote:because there's a good chance he's right,
I don't think there's much chance that a sitting president singlehandedly overturns an Amendment to the US Constitution.

People can keep insisting that's a thing that might happen every four years, but it's how we get a crowd fired up to not just stand up and walk out on Donald Trump when he suggests--and I don't care what he says, he absolutely suggested--that a "second amendment person" could protect their gun rights by, "I don't know."

Bullshit he doesn't know, and bullshit a president is going to walk in and overturn the second amendment. This is the kind of paranoid fear tactic that has allowed Trump to get this far, and he's just taking advantage of exploits previous politicians have left in the system. And shame on the NRA for not stepping up and saying that he crossed a line yesterday. They defended him. Our system is so far gone that a presidential nominee said that and people in his corner got behind it. The NRA got behind it, of course they did, because they can use that fear to make people run to the gun stores because nobody realizes their main purpose is to sell firearms to people through rhetoric.

I honestly wish he were pulled off of his jet by the FBI this morning to answer questions about that. There's "I don't like the Democrats" and then there's inciting someone to shoot a presidential nominee.

This isn't a gun rights thing. Good guys with guns would never have said that. That's why I'm starting to wonder where they all went.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 43995
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:47 pm

I don't think you'll get an argument that Trump was out of line and clearly suggesting someone shoot Hillary.

But it's an unnecessary straw man to prop up that a president can singlehandedly overturn an amendment. There are only 9 Supreme Court justice positions, and unfortunately I don't see Hillary nominating a bunch of moderate constitutionalists who'll feel duty bound to honor the precedents of their forebears, much less that they're actually educated on the topic. Who knows, though, maybe she'll surprise everyone.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
raptor9k
Crazy Person
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 8:33 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Arkansas
Contact:

Re: The second amendment

Post by raptor9k » Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:48 pm

I think it's funny and very telling that he doesn't include himself in 'Second Amendment people'...How much of a dumbass do you have to be not to see the sham?
I'm putting my talents and skills to use for a business so that I receive compensatory funds that I may then choose to spend and invest and save as I see fit. If I choose to blow it all on hookers and Dr. Seuss books, I don't see how that means you owe me a comfortable retirement. - Deacon

User avatar
The Cid
Crazy Person
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast
Contact:

Re: The second amendment

Post by The Cid » Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:56 pm

Deacon wrote:But it's an unnecessary straw man to prop up that a president can singlehandedly overturn an amendment. There are only 9 Supreme Court justice positions, and unfortunately I don't see Hillary nominating a bunch of moderate constitutionalists who'll feel duty bound to honor the precedents of their forebears, much less that they're actually educated on the topic. Who knows, though, maybe she'll surprise everyone.
Pretty sure that changing a constitutional amendment requires a two thirds majority in Congress, not the simple selection of Supreme Court justices. Which, by the way, need to be approved.

Presidents aren't dictators.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 43995
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Wed Aug 10, 2016 2:16 pm

Bud, are you trying to suggest that the Supreme Court rulings can't change in major ways how the amendments are interpreted and applied?
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
The Cid
Crazy Person
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast
Contact:

Re: The second amendment

Post by The Cid » Wed Aug 10, 2016 2:23 pm

For that to matter, more SC justices than just Scalia need to be off the bench, and cases need to come to the Supreme Court that allow them to do that.

Clinton can't remove justices, so while it's increasingly likely older justices will retire there are zero guarantees that will happen during her seemingly inevitable presidency.

Justices can't just get together and re-open an old case if there's not a legal challenge for them to consider.

And finally, justices don't get to go in without approval, as proven by the nominee that Congress stubbornly refuses to even talk about.

So yes, things can happen. But overturning an amendment is not one of them, and it's not as cut-and-dried as Clinton getting in and unilaterally changing matters. I understand that second amendment issues are an issue on which some people vote all but exclusively. That said, the rhetoric is far more severe than reality could possibly be.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 43995
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Wed Aug 10, 2016 2:38 pm

The Cid wrote:it's not as cut-and-dried as Clinton getting in and unilaterally changing matters.
I don't think that's been the argument of anyone here (and is even an exaggeration of the most extreme arguments outside).

But I disagree that the Supreme Court cannot actively change how the constitution (including amendments) is interpreted and applied, in a major and fundamental way. And just because they ruled one way doesn't mean that 5 or 10 or 20 years later they couldn't rule a different way. That's the job of the Supreme Court, frankly.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
The Cid
Crazy Person
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast
Contact:

Re: The second amendment

Post by The Cid » Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:01 pm

Yes. but again, a few things need to happen for them to be able to do that, not one of which is guaranteed, much less all of them.

It's not that there is no discussion to be had, but make it so extreme as "if she gets elected, there's nothing you can do," he hardly even needed to say the even more damning thing that followed. It really does seem like people have been building to yesterday's statement for quite a while. Nobody intended for it to devolve to something like that, but the groundwork for someone to say something like that had been done before Donald Trump even threw his hat into the ring.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 43995
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Wed Aug 10, 2016 4:32 pm

The Cid wrote:Yes. but again, a few things need to happen for them to be able to do that, not one of which is guaranteed, much less all of them.
That's true for everything always. But the point of campaigning is to outline what you intend to accomplish using whatever tools are available to you. And many are available to POTUS before you even consider pushing through SCOTUS appointments.

I doubt Hillary really is personally and deeply hostile to the Second Amendment. I think she doesn't really care much one way or the other. But it's politically expedient at the moment to act like it's a source of evil and heartache than needs to be reined in, and there's no reason to believe she (or her constituents) would have a change of heart on that any time soon.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
NorthernComfort
Crazy Person
Posts: 2745
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 8:13 pm
Real Name: Alex
Gender: Male
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The second amendment

Post by NorthernComfort » Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:29 pm

raptor9k wrote:I think it's funny and very telling that he doesn't include himself in 'Second Amendment people'...How much of a dumbass do you have to be not to see the sham?
This! So much this. I'm a pretty big fan of Bloomberg and I loved his line at the DNC: "I'm a New Yorker, and I know a con when I see one."

And about the Justices. On one hand, yes, it is the role of the SC to interpret laws and that might entail a new interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I think it's unbelievably unlikely that they would "essentially abolish" the 2nd. Like to the point where it's ludicrous and mostly just a talking point used to rile up a crowd. Basically it's a page straight out of Trump's playbook, and we need to send it packing along with the sentient cheeto.
Deacon wrote:I doubt Hillary really is personally and deeply hostile to the Second Amendment. I think she doesn't really care much one way or the other.
I think this hits the nail on the head. It's a policy issue and she will steer centrist on it, like she does on most issues. I think centrist these days would be a ban on production & sale of AR-15s and similar models, possibly ban on sale of 30 round magazines. Close the gun show loophole. But this is assuming a magically functional Congress... yeah right. So basically I don't think anything will change. Even if she stocked up the SC with 3 bleeding heart liberals there are tomes and tomes of rulings on the 2nd which make "essentially abolishing" the 2nd completely unrealistic.
"I guess I have a gift for expressing pedestrian tastes. In a way, it's kind of depressing." -Bill Watterson

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 43995
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Wed Aug 10, 2016 6:18 pm

NorthernComfort wrote:I think it's unbelievably unlikely that they would "essentially abolish" the 2nd.
Not really. You don't have to "abolish" it to undercut it severely, both philosophically and practically. You say that "centrist" means outlawing civilian ownership of semiautomatic rifles and standard capacity magazines, for example, which is an infringement on the Second Amendment, especially when viewed through the lens of SCOTUS rulings in the past few years. She wouldn't even need Congress to do it, as she would direct the BATFE, in the same way that Obama could make up his own immigration policy that's now up to be challenged in the Supreme Court.

It's easy to be dismissive of attacks on rights and freedoms that you don't personally care about. The frustrating thing is that so few people are able to look beyond the end of their nose on that one topic. When I object to Obama attempting to seize and exercise new executive powers, I'm told to just shut up I'm just a racist fuckwit who only objects because he's black. When the reality is I don't want Trump or Hillary or Johnson or Dubya or Reagan or whomever else to have those powers, either, powers which aren't rightfully theirs under the constitution, powers which tilt even further the already lopsided checks and balances. It's not like the 4th and so many other amendments, both in the Bill of Rights and beyond, aren't already being violated. To continue to push the envelope on executive power and the legalization of infringements on fundamental rights and freedoms just because they happen to suit your personal politics in the moment is a terrible way to go about it, because you won't always like the results of the precedents you've set.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 43995
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Wed Aug 10, 2016 6:24 pm

raptor9k wrote:I think it's funny and very telling that he doesn't include himself in 'Second Amendment people'...How much of a dumbass do you have to be not to see the sham?
Image
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
NorthernComfort
Crazy Person
Posts: 2745
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 8:13 pm
Real Name: Alex
Gender: Male
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The second amendment

Post by NorthernComfort » Wed Aug 10, 2016 6:31 pm

Deacon wrote:It's easy to be dismissive of attacks on rights and freedoms that you don't personally care about.
First off, I do personally care about these freedoms, and I don't support any of the regulations I outlined. But those are the typical proposals I hear a lot.
Deacon wrote:You say that "centrist" means outlawing civilian ownership of semiautomatic rifles and standard capacity magazines, for example, which is an infringement on the Second Amendment
They wouldn't be outlawed, as there are millions already in the country and all of them would necessarily be grandfathered in.
Deacon wrote:She wouldn't even need Congress to do it, as she would direct the BATFE, in the same way that Obama could make up his own immigration policy that's now up to be challenged in the Supreme Court.
What makes you think she would go down this path, while Obama did not? Because it's political suicide and therefore I think it's totally unrealistic for her to attempt it. Obama seems to care far more about gun control than Hillary anyways.

I just don't buy the rhetoric, and I think the topic is immediately hyperbolized to the point of being more farce than fact.
"I guess I have a gift for expressing pedestrian tastes. In a way, it's kind of depressing." -Bill Watterson

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests